I think there is a need to reassess what stuff we actually think all children should remember from our primary foundation curricula. You see things like 'Children will know that Nightingale was born 12th May 1820' and you think, 'Will they? Really?' https://twitter.com/michael_merrick/status/1358364774241890311

Imagine a geography curriculum that had lots of interesting stuff, but sought only to ensure knowledge of continents; oceans; where we live; what rivers, mountains, coasts, rainforests and volcanoes are & one example of each; urban/rural differences; that some places are very...

...different to others; and some map & fieldwork skills.

I'm pretty sure of two things, the apparent contradiction of which is telling:

1. This geography curriculum would be seen as unambitious.

2. A decade from now, most kids will leave primary school not knowing this much.

The challenge here is that it's hard to argue against 'ambition'. It's easy to say, 'Our Y3s learn the formula for photosynthesis in science because we are just much more ambitious than other schools; we know what children can *really* achieve.' It's much harder to say...

...'Actually, I think a curriculum that is *too* ambitious often leaves kids confused and without a grasp of the basics.' Unfashionable as it is to say, it is obviously possible to have expectations that are so high as to be counter-productive.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I made a science curriculum document with loads of stuff in it (no formulae, mind). I encourage anyone who has downloaded it to consider which parts are interesting details and which parts you really want kids to retain. Be ruthless.

In short, I think we need to be much more realistic about what we want the majority of children to retain from our foundation curricula. A bar set so high that very few can get over it provides neither motivation nor accountability.